But by helping them we are dishonoring them - by the implication that they are unable to help themselves. It's an insult rather than an honor.

So is being as obtrusive as possible a positive thing because you make it harder for them to express their will showing how great they are when they manage to express it? Is Hitler then the savior of the Jews by giving them something to do?

But by helping them we are dishonoring them - by the implication that they are unable to help themselves. It's an insult rather than an honor.

this only works (as noted above) if your idea of "honor" basically amounts to saying "fuck 'em." it's not an implication they're unable to help themselves, at least not to any individual who isn't insecure about his place in the world/society. not all people are equally capable of all things; admitting this isn't a judgement of weaknesses, it's just a basic observation of reality. and people who are honored, who have shown a willingness to use those strengths they DO have, have earned the privilege of having their weaknesses aided by others

Yesterday, I helped an old lady lift her suitcase up and down a flight of stairs. I hadn't had this opportunity before. Despite being a cliché, and really being no bother at all, I felt a tangible sense of glee at being able to help to a worthy cause. A real worthy cause, mind you; not like a damaging placation of guilt such as donating to third world charity con. I then went to work afterwards with what felt like a rainbow behind my eyes. Work is normally a bothersome trudge to get through, but I found myself, unawares, happily talking away to my imperfect work neighbours and customers on the telephone, interactions which would normally quietly frustrate me. It was a real shift of interpretation, and today I have been practising the piano with renewed vigour.

I guess the point of this ASBO-inspired thread is to say that metal can often paint a worthless, fatalist picture of humanity and our actions within it. But actually the ability to help the good, and not just criticise the bad, has an immediate and personal sense of uplifting, if you let it. A nihilist shouldn't lose all sense of right and wrong, he just interprets it better and adjusts his actions accordingly.

I agree with your comments. I would still argue, however, that where help is not needed, the helper gets a greater benefit than the helped. If a confidence boost is the result of doing something for another, surely the other person would feel the reverse as a result of powerless or incapacity.

The drive for plenty of seemingly minor or pointless actions stems from the fact that they are usually cobeneficial, or socially beneficial, in groups where the degree of kinship is high. One certainly wouldn't reject one's own grandmother as "weak" for being unable to accomplish some physical task; the plight of an anonymous old woman will probably generate similar sympathy and a similar reaction.

Liberalism, as Nietzsche helped us understand, is in part obsessed with the denial of the importance of such relationships and the sideways pursuit of their peripheral benefits as their own reward, or as revenge for some glaring personal flaw.

All the commentary of how helping others is simply moralistic behaviour inexplicable in a nihilistic sense or that the weak are all that much weaker for desiring help is ignoring the basic reason for why society exists: Society is a support structure. No appeals to morality are needed to see the value in aiding those who in turn aid you by their contributions to said support structure.

That is still moralistic. You have simply replaced the fear of God with pragmatism as the reason for adhering to essentially the same moral tenet.In any case pure pragmatism does not justify such moralistic behaviour. If I help old people across the street, give money to beggars, etc., I gain nothing. If I fail to do so I lose nothing. Society - the support structure - will give me the same assistance if I need help in either case.

Every human act requires a rational consideration, for example: is this thing like it should be or should it be otherwise?For if everything were as it should be, no human act would be required at all.Such a consideration requires a concept, a preconveived state of how the thing should be. Without such a concept, you're basically a stone.

That is still moralistic. You have simply replaced the fear of God with pragmatism as the reason for adhering to essentially the same moral tenet.In any case pure pragmatism does not justify such moralistic behaviour. If I help old people across the street, give money to beggars, etc., I gain nothing. If I fail to do so I lose nothing. Society - the support structure - will give me the same assistance if I need help in either case.

Not necessarily. What if the old person is crossing the street to teach your child at a school, and the beggar gets just enough money that he doesn't have to steal your food? Helping these people in some circumstances can be justified without saying that helping them is 'right', because the benefit comes straight back to you.

it seems as if there's a disturbing level of belief around these parts in the concept that things that make you feel good, should be avoided on no other basis than BECAUSE they feel good. which is a statement of value with no rationale behind it - i.e., this is wrong, because i say so. pure opinion. in other words - *that* is moralism; just in a form that's opposed to what the mainstream teaches. one shouldn't avoid certain things because they feel good - this is an opposite-but-equal reaction to doing things because they do feel good. it's the same mentality. avoid things that are detrimental, even if they feel good, yes. but don't confuse the method with the madness. helping old people take their groceries home is about the least detrimental thing i can think of that still involves some level of action.

saying that replacing god with pragmatism is faulty because -and only because- it leads to the same conclusions on some matters, is ridiculous. that's like saying -to make use of the "ends justify the means" cliche- that ALL possible means leading to an end are worthless if there are some other worthless means that lead to the same end. it's backwards thinking. one should aim forward. it's also, in this particular case, reminiscent of those who try to argue that science is just another religion.